Lamoureux v. Fournier Dit Larose, (1903) 33 SCR 675

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamoureux v. Fournier Dit Larose, (1903) 33 SCR 675

Date: 1903-03-26

LAMOUREUX v. FOURNIER dit LAROSE.

1903: Mar 10; 1903: Mar 11; 1903: Mar 26

PRESENT:—Sedgewick, Girouard, Davies, Mills and Armour JJ.

Negligence—Employer and employee—Insecure scaffold—Disobedience to rules—Dangerous way, works and machinery.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, affirming the judgment of the Court of Review, at Quebec ([1]) which had reversed the judgment of Cassault C.J. in the Superior Court, at Quebec, and awarded the plaintiff $1,000 for damages, with costs.

The action was for $5,000 damages sustained by the plaintiff, (respondent,) on account of the death of her husband caused, as alleged, by the falling of a scaffold used as a landing stage for unloading stone from defendant's barges on the River St. Charles, at the City of Quebec. The fall of the scaffold was alleged to have occurred on account of negligence on the part of the defendant in constructing it in an improper manner, insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended and allowing it to become overladen with stone. The defence, in effect set up that the fall of the scaffold resulted from the contributory negligence of deceased in disobeying orders and willfully overloading the scaffold while the foreman was momentarily absent. The work was being carried on in waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides and appeared to have been of a dangerous character unless it was carefully performed under the surveillance of an experienced overseer. The trial was had before the Chief Justice, Sir L. N. Cassault, who dismissed the action on the

[Page 676]

ground that deceased had been the cause of his own death through wilful disobedience of orders and gross negligence. The judgment appealed from affirmed the decision of the Superior Court, sitting in review, at Quebec ([2]), which reversed the judgment rendered at the trial and held that "in order to free himself from civil responsibility in such a case, an employer should, either personally or through his overseer or foreman, not only give orders to his employees to discontinue work when considered dangerous, but that he should also, either personally or through the overseer or foreman, see that such orders were respected and carried out and that, if he failed to do so, he would be liable for damages caused by accidents happening as the result of the non-observance of the orders. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

After hearing counsel for the parties the Supreme Court of Canada reserved judgment and, on a subsequent day, dismissed the appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Gibsone for the appellant.

Lane for the respondent.